Item 1A. Risk Factors
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
We are subject to numerous risks, many of which are inherent to our business. As a financial services organization, we must balance revenue generation and profitability with the risks associated with our business activities. For information about how our risk oversight and management process operates, see Item 7 of this Report, MD&A – "Risk Management.” The following discussion highlights specific risks that could affect us and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Based on the information currently known, we believe that the following information identifies the material risk factors affecting us. The risks and uncertainties we face are not limited to those described below. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business.
You should carefully consider each of the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this Report. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develop into actual events or if the circumstances described in the risks and uncertainties occur or continue to occur, these events or circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. These events could also have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.
1. Credit Risk
Our results of operations are significantly affected by the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans.
Lending money is an essential part of the banking business. However, for various reasons, borrowers do not always repay their loans. The risk of non-payment is affected by credit risks of a particular borrower, changes in economic conditions that impact certain geographic markets or industries, fluctuations in interest rates on adjustable-rate loans, the duration of the loan, and in the case of a collateralized loan, uncertainties as to the future value of the collateral.
23
Table of Contents
Generally, commercial loans and leases present a greater risk of non-payment by a borrower than other types of loans. They typically involve larger loan balances and are particularly sensitive to economic conditions. The borrower’s ability to repay usually depends on the successful operation of its business and income stream. In addition, some of our commercial borrowers have more than one loan outstanding with us, which means that an adverse development with respect to one loan or one credit relationship can expose us to significantly greater risk of loss. In the case of commercial and industrial loans, collateral often consists of accounts receivable, inventory and equipment, which may not yield substantial recovery of principal losses incurred, and is susceptible to deterioration or other loss in advance of liquidation of such collateral. Consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower’s continuing financial stability, and thus are more likely to be affected by adverse personal circumstances. Furthermore, the application of various federal and state laws, including bankruptcy and insolvency laws, may limit the amount that can be recovered on these loans. For additional information, see the Lending Activity section of MD&A, which is included in Item 7 of this Report.
Our mortgage banking profitability could be significantly reduced if we are not able to originate and resell a high volume of mortgage loans.
Mortgage banking is generally considered a volatile source of income because it depends largely on the volume of loans we originate and sell in the secondary market. If our originations of mortgage loans decrease, resulting in fewer loans that are available to be sold to investors, this would result in a decrease in mortgage revenues and a corresponding decrease in non-interest income.
• Mortgage loan production levels are sensitive to changes in economic conditions and activity, strengths or weaknesses in the housing market, changes in FRB monetary policies, interest rate fluctuations and the availability of an active secondary market or originations could shift to adjustable rate products which may be held in the portfolio. Generally, any sustained period of decreased economic activity or higher interest rates could reduce demand for mortgage loans and refinancings. In addition, our results of operations are affected by the amount of non-interest expense associated with mortgage banking activities, such as salaries, commissions and employee benefits, occupancy, equipment and data processing expense and other operating costs. During periods of reduced loan demand, our results of operations may be adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to reduce expenses commensurate with the decline in loan originations.
• Future changes to our eligibility to participate in the programs offered by the GSEs and other secondary purchasers, or the loan criteria of the GSEs and other secondary purchasers could also result in a lower volume of corresponding loan originations and sales.
Our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected if we must further increase our provision for credit losses or if our ACL is not sufficient to absorb actual losses.
There is no precise method of predicting loan losses. We can give no assurance that our ACL will be sufficient to absorb actual loan losses. Excess loan losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The level of the ACL reflects the judgment and estimates of management regarding the amount and timing of future cash flows, current fair value of the underlying collateral and other qualitative risk factors that may affect the loan. Determination of the allowance is inherently subjective and is based on factors that are susceptible to significant change. Continuing deterioration in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the ACL. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review our ACL and may require an increase in the provision for credit losses or the recognition of additional loan charge-offs, based on judgments different from those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the ACL, we will need additional provisions to increase the ACL. Any increases in the ACL will result in a decrease in net income and capital and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. For additional discussion relating to this matter, refer to the Allowance and Provision for Credit Losses section of MD&A, which is included in Item 7 of this Report.
2. Market Risk
Interest rates on our outstanding financial instruments might be subject to change based on the replacement of LIBOR, which could adversely affect revenue, expenses, and the value of those financial instruments.
The FCA (the authority that regulates LIBOR) announced that LIBOR will cease after June 30, 2023. The federal banking agencies, including the OCC, have determined that banks must cease entering into any new contract that uses LIBOR as a
24
Table of Contents
reference rate by no later than December 31, 2021. In addition, banks were encouraged to identify contracts that extend beyond June 30, 2023 and implement plans to identify and address insufficient contingency provisions in those contracts. Further, on March 15, 2022, Congress passed the Adjustable Interest Rate Act to address references to LIBOR in contracts that (i) are governed by U.S. law, (ii) will not mature before June 30, 2023, and (iii) lack fallback provisions providing for a clearly defined and practicable replacement for LIBOR. On December 16, 2022, the FRB adopted a final rule implementing this legislation that replaces references to LIBOR in financial contracts addressed by the legislation with certain FRB-selected benchmark rates based on SOFR.
A consensus has not yet been reached on what rate or rates may be viewed as acceptable alternatives to LIBOR. The OCC has opined that national banks may use any reference rate for its loans that a bank determines to be appropriate for its funding model and customer needs. The FRB of New York established the ARRC, which has recommended the use of benchmark rates based on SOFR, including a forward-looking term SOFR rate, as alternatives to LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts that are currently indexed to U.S. dollar-LIBOR. The ARRC has proposed a paced market transition plan from LIBOR to SOFR and organizations are currently working on industry-wide and company-specific transition plans as it relates to derivatives and cash markets exposed to LIBOR. We have a significant number of loans, derivatives and other financial instrument contracts that are indexed to LIBOR and we have created transition plans and executed certain portions of those plans in 2022.
The market transition away from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, including SOFR (or benchmark rates based on SOFR), is complex and could have a range of adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For instance, certain benchmark rates based on SOFR, such as the forward-looking term SOFR rate, are calculated and published by third parties. Because SOFR, and such other benchmark rates based on SOFR, are published by third parties, we have no control over their determination, calculation or publication. There can be no assurance that SOFR, or benchmark rates based on SOFR, will not be discontinued or fundamentally altered in a manner that is materially adverse to the parties that utilize such rates as the reference rate for transactions. The impact of this transition, as well as the effect of these developments on our funding costs, loan and investment securities portfolios, asset-liability management, and business, is uncertain.
Our business and financial performance is impacted significantly by market rates and changes in those rates. The monetary, tax and other policies of governmental agencies, including the UST and the FRB, have a direct impact on interest rates and overall financial market performance over which we have no control and which may not be able to be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
As a result of the high percentage of our assets and liabilities that are in the form of interest-bearing or interest-related instruments, changes in interest rates, in the shape of the yield curve or in spreads between different market interest rates can have a material effect on our business, profitability and the value of our financial assets and liabilities. Such scenarios may include the following:
• changes in interest rates or interest rate spreads can affect the difference between the interest that FNBPA can earn on assets and the interest that FNBPA has to pay on liabilities, which impacts FNBPA’s overall net interest income and profitability;
• such changes can affect the ability of borrowers to meet obligations under variable or adjustable-rate loans and other debt instruments and can, in turn, affect our loss rates on those assets;
• such changes may decrease the demand for interest rate-based products or services, including bank loans and deposit products and the subordinated notes offered by our subsidiary, FNB Financial Services, LP;
• such changes can also affect our ability to hedge various forms of market and interest rate risks and may decrease the profitability or increase the risk associated with such hedges; and
• movements in interest rates also affect mortgage repayment speeds and could result in impairments of MSAs or otherwise affect the profitability of such assets.
The monetary, tax and other policies of the U.S. Government and its agencies also have a significant impact on interest rates and overall financial market performance. An important function of the FRB is to regulate the national supply of bank credit and certain interest rates through implementation of certain monetary policies. Due to elevated levels of inflation and corresponding pressure to raise interest rates, the FRB announced in January 2022 that it would be slowing the pace of its bond purchasing and increasing the target range for the Federal funds rate over time. The FOMC has since increased the target range seven times throughout 2022. As of December 31, 2022, the target range for the Federal funds rate had been increased to 4.25% - 4.50% and the FOMC signaled that future increases may be appropriate in order to attain a monetary policy sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to more normalized levels.
25
Table of Contents
Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and investments and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits; (ii) the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities; and (iii) the average duration of our mortgage portfolio and other interest-earning assets. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, our net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings. Our interest rate risk profile is such that a higher or steeper yield curve adds to income while a flatter yield curve is relatively neutral, and a lower or inverted yield curve generally has a negative impact on earnings. Our most significant interest rate risk may result from a prolonged low-rate environment, as this would generally lead to compression of our net interest margin, reduced net interest income, and devaluation of our deposit base.
Any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, and any related economic downturn, especially domestically and in the regions in which we operate, may adversely affect our asset quality, deposit levels, loan demand and results of operations. Also, our interest rate risk modeling techniques and assumptions likely may not fully predict or capture the impact of actual interest rate changes on our balance sheet.
The impact of interest rates on our mortgage banking business can have a significant impact on revenues.
Changes in interest rates can impact our mortgage-related revenues and net revenues associated with our mortgage activities. A decline in mortgage rates generally increases the demand for mortgage loans as borrowers refinance, but also generally leads to accelerated payoffs. Conversely, in a constant or increasing rate environment, we would expect fewer loans to be refinanced and a decline in payoffs. The estimates of revenues produced by models we use to assess the impact of interest rates on mortgage-related revenues are dependent on estimates and assumptions of future loan demand, prepayment speeds and other factors which may differ from actual subsequent experience.
Changes in interest rates could reduce the value of our AFS securities holdings which would increase our accumulated other comprehensive loss and thereby negatively impact stockholders’ equity.
We maintain an investment portfolio consisting of various high-quality liquid fixed-income securities. The total carrying value of the AFS securities portfolio as of December 31, 2022 was $3.3 billion and the estimated duration of the portfolio was approximately 3.5 years. The nature of fixed-income securities is such that changes in market interest rates impact the value of these assets. Based on the duration of our AFS securities portfolio, a one percent decrease in market rates is projected to increase the market value of the AFS securities portfolio by approximately $118.1 million, while a one percent increase in market rates is projected to decrease the market value of the AFS securities portfolio by approximately $115.4 million. As a result of the rising interest rate environment in 2022, the value of our AFS securities declined as reflected in an increase of $277.2 million in our accumulated other comprehensive loss at December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021. Further increases in market interest rates are expected to further increase our accumulated other comprehensive loss.
3. Liquidity Risk
Liquidity risk could impair our ability to fund operations and meet our obligations as they become due.
Our ability to implement our business strategy will depend on our liquidity and ability to obtain funding for loan originations, working capital and other general purposes. Liquidity is needed to fund various obligations, including credit commitments to borrowers, mortgage and other loan originations, withdrawals by depositors, repayment of borrowings, dividends to shareholders, operating expenses and capital expenditures. Liquidity risk is the potential that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they come due, capitalize on growth opportunities as they arise, or pay regular dividends on our common stock because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding on a timely basis, at a reasonable cost and within acceptable risk tolerances. Our preferred sources for funding are deposits and customer repurchase agreements, which are low cost and stable sources of funding for us. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks and credit unions, as well as non-depository competitors such as mutual funds, fintechs, securities and brokerage firms and insurance companies, for deposits and customer repurchase agreements. If we are unable to attract and maintain sufficient levels of deposits and customer repurchase agreements to fund our loan growth and liquidity objectives, we may be subject to paying higher funding costs by raising interest rates that are paid on deposits and customer repurchase agreements or cause us to source funds from third-party providers which may be higher cost funding.
26
Table of Contents
Our growth may require us to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed.
We are required by federal and state regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations (see discussion under “Government Supervision and Regulation” included in Item 1 of this Report). As a financial holding company, we seek to maintain capital sufficient to meet the “well-capitalized” standard set by regulators. We anticipate that our current capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future. We may at some point, however, need to raise additional capital to support continued growth, whether such growth occurs organically or through acquisitions.
The availability of additional capital or financing will depend on a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control, such as market conditions, the general availability of credit, the overall availability of credit to the financial services industry, our credit ratings and credit capacity, marketability of our stock, as well as the possibility that lenders and investors could develop a negative perception of our long- or short-term financial prospects if we incur large credit losses or if the level of business activity decreases due to economic conditions. Accordingly, there can be no assurance of our ability to expand our operations through organic growth or acquisitions. As such, we may be forced to delay raising capital, issue shorter term securities than desired or bear an unattractive cost of capital, which could decrease profitability and significantly reduce financial flexibility. In addition, if we decide to raise additional equity capital, it could be dilutive to our existing stockholders.
We are dependent on dividends from our subsidiaries to meet our financial obligations and pay dividends to stockholders.
We are a holding company and conduct almost all of our operations through our subsidiaries. We do not have any significant assets other than cash and the stock of our subsidiaries. Accordingly, we depend on dividends from our subsidiaries to meet our financial obligations and to pay dividends to stockholders. Our right to participate in any distribution of earnings or assets of our subsidiaries is subject to the prior claims of creditors of such subsidiaries. Under federal law, the amount of dividends that a national bank, such as FNBPA, may pay in a calendar year is dependent on the amount of our net income for the current year combined with our retained net income for the two preceding years. The OCC has the authority to prohibit FNBPA from paying dividends if it determines such payment would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Likewise, our state-based entities are subject to state laws governing dividend practices and payments.
Regulatory authorities may restrict our ability to pay dividends on and repurchase our common stock.
Dividends on our common stock will be payable only if, when and as authorized and declared by our Board of Directors. In addition, banking laws and regulations and our banking regulators may limit our ability to pay dividends and make share repurchases. In certain circumstances, we will not be able to make a capital distribution unless the FRB has approved such distribution, including if the dividend could not be fully funded by our net income over the last four quarters (net of dividends paid), our prospective rate of earnings retention appears inconsistent with our capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition, or we will not be able to continue meeting minimum required capital ratios. As a bank holding company, we also are required to consult with the FRB before increasing dividends or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. Additionally, the FRB could prohibit or limit our payment of dividends if it determines that payment of the dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. There can be no assurance that we will declare and pay any dividends or repurchase any shares of our common stock in the future.
We have outstanding securities senior to common stock which could limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock.
We have outstanding TPS and Series E preferred stock that are senior to the common stock and could adversely affect our ability to declare or pay dividends or distributions on our common stock. The terms of the TPS prohibit us from declaring or paying dividends or making distributions on our junior capital stock, including the common stock, or purchasing, acquiring, or making a liquidation payment on any junior capital stock, if: (1) an event of default has occurred and is continuing under the junior subordinated debentures underlying the TPS, (2) we are in default with respect to a guarantee payment under the guarantee of the related TPS or (3) we have given notice of our election to defer interest payments, but the related deferral period has not yet commenced or a deferral period is continuing. We also would be prohibited from paying dividends on our common stock unless all full dividends for the latest dividend period have been declared and paid on all outstanding shares of the Series E preferred stock. If we experience a material deterioration in our financial condition, liquidity, capital, results of operations or risk profile, our regulators may not permit us to make future payments on our TPS or preferred stock, which would also prevent us from paying any dividends on our common stock.
27
Table of Contents
4. Reputational Risk
Our key assets include our brand and reputation and our business may be affected by how we are perceived in the market place.
Our brand and our reputation are our key assets. Our ability to attract and retain banking, insurance, wealth management and corporate clients and employees is highly dependent upon external perceptions of our culture, level of service, security, trustworthiness, business practices and financial condition. Negative perceptions or publicity regarding these matters could damage our reputation among existing customers and corporate clients and employees, which could make it difficult for us to attract new clients and employees and retain existing ones. Adverse developments with respect to the financial services industry or sociopolitical events and circumstances may also, by association, negatively impact our reputation, or result in greater regulatory or legislative scrutiny or litigation against us. Although we monitor developments for areas of potential risk to our reputation and brand, negative perceptions or publicity could materially and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.
We are subject to environmental, social and governance risks that could adversely affect our reputation and the market price of our securities.
We are subject to a variety of risks arising from environmental, social and governance matters or “ESG” matters. ESG matters include climate risk, hiring practices, the diversity of our work force, and racial and social justice issues involving our personnel, customers and third parties with whom we otherwise do business. Risks arising from ESG matters may adversely affect, among other things, our reputation and the market price of our securities.
Further, we may be exposed to negative publicity based on the identity and activities of those to whom we lend and with which we otherwise do business, and the public’s view of the approach and performance of our customers and business partners with respect to ESG matters. Any such negative publicity could arise from adverse news coverage in traditional media and could also spread through the use of social media platforms. Our relationships and reputation with our existing and prospective customers and third parties with whom we do business could be damaged if we were to become the subject of any such negative publicity. This, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain customers and employees and could have a negative impact on the market price for our securities.
Investors have begun to consider the steps taken and resources allocated by financial institutions and other commercial organizations to address ESG matters when making investment and operational decisions. Certain investors are beginning to incorporate the business risks of climate change and the adequacy of companies’ responses to the risks posed by climate change and other ESG matters into their investment theses.
Increased attention to ESG matters also has caused public officials, including certain state attorneys general, treasurers, and legislators, to take various actions to impact the extent to which ESG principles are considered by private investors. For instance, certain states have enacted laws or issued directives designed to penalize financial institutions that the state believes are boycotting certain industries such as the fossil fuel and firearms industries. In addition, a group of state attorneys general has launched a joint investigation into a firm that generates ESG ratings for investment purposes based upon concerns of potential consumer fraud or unfair trade practices. These developments illustrate that ESG-based investing has become a divisive political issue. Shifts in investing priorities based on ESG principles may result in adverse effects on the market price of our securities to the extent that investors that give significant weight to such principles determine that we have not made sufficient progress on ESG matters. Conversely, the market price of our securities may be adversely affected if a government official or agency seeks to limit our business with a certain government entity or initiates an investigation or enforcement action because of what is perceived to be our unwarranted focus on ESG matters.
5. Operational Risk
Our failure to continue to recruit and retain qualified banking professionals could adversely affect our ability to compete successfully and affect our profitability.
Our continued success and future growth depends heavily on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled, diverse and motivated banking professionals. We compete against many institutions with greater financial resources both within our industry and in other industries to attract these qualified individuals. Our failure to recruit and retain adequate talent could reduce our ability to compete successfully and adversely affect our business and profitability.
28
Table of Contents
The financial soundness of other financial institutions may adversely affect FNB, FNBPA and other affiliates.
Financial institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. FNB, FNBPA and other affiliates are exposed to many different industries and counterparties and they routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional clients. Many of these types of transactions expose FNB, FNBPA and other affiliates to credit risk in the event of default of the counterparty or client. In addition, FNBPA and other affiliates’ credit risks may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices that are not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure that we are due.
We are subject to operational risk that could damage our reputation and our business. We engage in a variety of businesses in diverse markets and rely on systems, employees, service providers and counterparties to properly process a high volume of transactions.
Like all businesses, we are subject to operational risk, which represents the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes in our systems, human error and external events. Operational risk also encompasses technology, compliance and legal risk, which is the risk of loss from violations of, or noncompliance with, rules, regulations, prescribed practices or ethical standards, as well as the risk of our noncompliance with contractual and other obligations. Many strategic initiatives, such as development of new products, product enhancements, use of technology, staffing reductions or shortages, changes in business processes and acquisitions of other financial services companies or their assets, could substantially increase operational risk. We are also exposed to operational risk through our outsourcing arrangements, and the effect the changes in circumstances or capabilities of our outsourcing vendors can have on our ability to continue to perform operational functions necessary to our business. We outsource certain data processing and online and mobile banking services to third-party providers. Those third-party providers could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints, and we have limited ability to control that risk. Control weaknesses or failures or other operational risk could result in charges, increased operational costs, harm to our reputation, inability to secure insurance, civil litigation, regulatory intervention, including enforcement action and enhanced supervisory scrutiny, foregone business opportunities, the loss of customer business, especially if customers are discouraged from using our mobile bill pay, mobile banking and online banking services, or the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of proprietary information.
Changes and instability in economic conditions, geopolitical matters and financial markets, including a contraction of economic activity, could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our success depends, to a certain extent, upon global, domestic and local economic and political conditions, as well as governmental monetary policies. Conditions such as changes in interest rates, money supply, levels of employment and other factors beyond our control may have a negative impact on economic activity. Any contraction of economic activity, including an economic recession, may adversely affect our asset quality, deposit levels and loan demand and, therefore, our earnings. In particular, interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including global, domestic and local economic conditions and the policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, specifically, the FRB. Throughout 2022 the FOMC raised the target range for the Federal funds rate on seven separate occasions and—citing factors including the hardships caused by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, continued global supply chain disruptions and imbalances, and increased inflationary pressure—the FOMC has indicated that ongoing increases may be appropriate.
The tightening of the FRB’s monetary policies, including repeated and aggressive increases in the target range for the Federal funds rate as well as the conclusion of the FRB’s tapering of asset purchases, together with ongoing economic and geopolitical instability, increases the risk of an economic recession. Although forecasts have varied, many economists are projecting that U.S. economic growth will slow and inflation will remain elevated in the coming quarters, potentially resulting in a contraction of U.S. gross domestic output in 2023. Any such downturn, especially domestically and in the regions in which we operate, may adversely affect our asset quality, deposit levels, loan demand and results of operations.
As a result of the economic and geopolitical factors discussed above, financial institutions also face heightened credit risk, among other forms of risk. Of note, because we have a significant amount of real estate loans, decreases in real estate values could adversely affect the value of property used as collateral, which, in turn, can adversely affect the value of our loan and investment portfolios. Adverse economic developments, specifically including inflation-related impacts, may have a negative effect on the ability of our borrowers to make timely repayments of their loans or to finance future home purchases. Moreover, while commercial real estate values have stabilized as demand has returned to pre-pandemic levels in several markets; the post-pandemic outlook for commercial real estate demand remains dependent on the broader economic environment and, specifically, how major subsectors respond to a rising interest rate environment, the reduction of office utilization due to the
29
Table of Contents
impact of hybrid working patterns, greater flexibility for work location, and higher prices for commodities, goods and services. In each case, credit performance over the medium- and long-term is susceptible to economic and market forces and therefore forecasts remain uncertain. Instability and uncertainty in the commercial and residential real estate markets, headwinds for lease rates and landlord cash flows, as well as in the broader commercial and retail credit markets, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Our business could be adversely affected by difficult economic conditions in the regions in which we operate.
We operate in seven states and the District of Columbia. Most of our customers are individuals and small- and medium-sized businesses that are dependent upon their regional economies. The economic conditions in these local markets may be different from, and in some instances worse than, economic conditions in the U.S. as a whole. Challenging macroeconomic, recessionary and employment conditions in the market areas we serve could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations:
• demand for our loans, deposits and services may decline;
• loan delinquencies, problem assets, foreclosures and charge-offs may increase;
• weak economic conditions could limit the demand for loans by creditworthy borrowers, limiting our capacity to leverage our retail deposits and maintain our net interest income;
• collateral for our loans may decline in value; and
• the amount of our low-cost or non-interest-bearing deposits may decrease.
The banking and financial services industry continually encounters technological change, especially in the systems that are used to deliver products to, and execute transactions on behalf of, customers, and if we fail to continue to invest in technological improvements as they become appropriate or necessary, our ability to compete effectively could be severely impaired.
The banking and financial services industry continually undergoes technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better compete for and serve customers and reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to address customer needs by using secure technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our larger competitors have greater resources to invest in technological improvements, and we may not effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or do so as quickly as our competitors. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the banking and financial services industry could negatively affect our revenue and profitability.
In addition, although the digital asset marketplace has in recent months experienced substantial instability, transactions utilizing digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and other similar assets, have increased over the course of the last several years. Certain characteristics of digital asset transactions, such as the speed with which such transactions can be conducted, the ability to transact without the involvement of regulated intermediaries, the ability to engage in transactions across multiple jurisdictions, and the anonymous nature of the transactions, are appealing to certain consumers notwithstanding the various risks posed by such transactions as illustrated by the current market downturn. Accordingly, digital asset service providers - which, at present are not subject to the extensive regulation as banking organizations and other financial institutions - have become active competitors for our customers' banking business. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as "disintermediation," could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
An interruption in or breach in security of our information systems, or other cybersecurity risks, could result in a loss of customer business, increased compliance and remediation costs, civil litigation or governmental regulatory action, and have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
As part of our business, we collect, process and retain sensitive and confidential client and customer information in both paper and electronic form and rely heavily on communications and information systems for these functions. This information includes non-public, personally-identifiable information that is protected under applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Additionally, certain of these data processing functions are not handled by us directly, but are outsourced to third-party providers. Our facilities and systems, and those of our third-party service providers, may be vulnerable to security breaches, acts of vandalism and other physical security threats, computer viruses or compromises, ransomware attacks, misplaced or lost
30
Table of Contents
data, programming and/or human errors or other similar events. Any security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of our confidential business, employee or customer information, whether originating with us, our vendors or retail businesses, could severely damage our reputation, expose us to the risks of civil litigation and liability, require the payment of regulatory fines or penalties or undertaking of costly remediation efforts with respect to third parties affected by a security breach, disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The cost of our day-to-day cybersecurity monitoring and protection systems and controls may increase over time. We may also need to expend substantial resources to comply with the data security breach notification requirements adopted by banking regulators and the states, which have varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory or law enforcement notification and remediation requirements in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach.
Cybersecurity risks appear to be growing and, as a result, the cyber-resilience of banking organizations is of increased importance to federal and state banking agencies and other regulators. New or revised laws and regulations may significantly impact our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security-related practices, the collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer and employee information, and current or planned business activities. Compliance with current, proposed, or future privacy, data protection and information security laws to which we are subject could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to provide certain products and services, which could materially and adversely affect our profitability.
In the last few years, there have been an increasing number of cyber incidents, including several well-publicized cyber-attacks that targeted other U.S. companies, including financial services companies much larger than us. Cyber-attacks involving large financial institutions are becoming more common and increasingly sophisticated. Further, threat actors are increasingly seeking to target vulnerabilities in software systems used by large numbers of banking organizations in order to conduct malicious cyber activities. These types of attacks have resulted in increased supply chain and third-party risk. In addition, on March 21, 2022, the Biden Administration issued a warning regarding the potential for Russia to engage in malicious cyber activities, specifically including attacks on critical infrastructure such as the financial sector, in response to the international economic sanctions that have been imposed against the Russian government and organizations and individuals within Russia.
As technology advances, the ability to initiate transactions and access data has also become more widely distributed among mobile devices, personal computers, automated teller machines, remote deposit capture sites and similar access points, some of which are not controlled or secured by us. It is possible that we could have exposure to liability and suffer losses as a result of a security breach or cyber-attack that occurred through no fault of ours. Although we maintain specific “cyber” insurance coverage, which would apply in the event of various breach scenarios, the amount of coverage may not be adequate in any particular case. In addition, cyber threat scenarios are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, several of which may not be covered under our cyber insurance coverage. As cyber threats continue to evolve and increase, we may be required to spend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective and preventative measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities.
Cybersecurity risks for financial institutions also have evolved as a result of the increased interconnectedness of operating environments and the use of new technologies, devices and delivery channels to transmit data and conduct financial transactions. The adoption of new products, services and delivery channels contribute to a more complex operating environment, which enhances operational risk and presents the potential for additional structural vulnerabilities. In addition, the adoption of hybrid and remote work environments following the COVID-19 pandemic presents institutions with additional cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks.
O ur day-to-day operations rely heavily on the proper functioning of products, information systems and services provided by third-party, external vendors.
We rely on certain external vendors to provide products, information systems and services necessary to maintain our day-to-day operations. These third parties provide key components of our business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, Internet connections and network access. Any complications caused by these third parties, including those resulting from disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor, failure of a vendor to handle current or higher volumes, cyber-attacks and security breaches at a vendor, failure of a vendor to comply with applicable laws and regulations or to conform to our internal controls and risk management procedures, and failure of a vendor to provide services for any reason or poor performance of services, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our customers and otherwise conduct our business. Financial or operational difficulties of a third-party vendor could also hurt our operations if those difficulties interfere with the vendor’s ability to provide services. Furthermore, our vendors could also be sources of operational and information security risk, including from breakdowns or failures of their
31
Table of Contents
own systems or capacity constraints. Replacing these third-party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Problems caused by external vendors could be disruptive to our operations, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.
There may be risks resulting from the extensive use of models in our business.
We rely on quantitative models to measure risks and to estimate certain financial values. Models may be used in such processes as determining the pricing of various products, developing presentations made to market analysts and others, creating loans and extending credit, measuring interest rate and other market risks, predicting losses, assessing capital adequacy, developing strategic planning initiatives, capital stress testing and calculating regulatory capital levels, as well as to estimate the value of financial instruments and Balance Sheet items. Poorly designed or implemented models present the risk that our business decisions based on information incorporating models will be adversely affected due to the inadequacy of such information. Also, information we provide to the public or to our regulators based on poorly designed or implemented models could be inaccurate or misleading. Certain decisions that the regulators make, including those related to capital distributions and dividends to our stockholders, could be adversely affected due to the regulator’s perception that the quality of the models used to generate our relevant information is insufficient.
Our asset valuations may include methodologies, estimations and assumptions that are subject to differing interpretations and this, along with market factors such as volatility in one or more markets or industries, could result in changes to asset valuations that may materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.
We must use estimates, assumptions and judgments when assets are measured and reported at fair value. Assets carried at fair value inherently result in a higher degree of financial statement volatility. Because the assets are carried at fair value, a decline in their value may cause us to incur losses even if the assets in question present minimal risk. Fair values and information used to record valuation adjustments for certain assets and liabilities are based on quoted market prices and/or other observable inputs provided by independent third-party resources, when available. When such third-party information is not available, we estimate fair value primarily by using cash flow and other financial modeling techniques utilizing assumptions such as credit quality, liquidity, interest rates and other relevant inputs. Changes in underlying factors or assumptions in any of the areas underlying these estimates could materially impact our future financial condition and results of operations.
During periods of market disruption, including periods of significantly rising or high interest rates, rapidly widening credit spreads or illiquidity, it may be more difficult to value certain assets if trading becomes less frequent and/or market data becomes less observable. There may be certain asset classes that were historically in active markets with significant observable data that rapidly become illiquid due to market volatility, a loss in market confidence or other factors. In such cases, valuations in certain asset classes may require more subjectivity and management discretion; valuations may include inputs and assumptions that are less observable or require greater estimation. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented market conditions in any particular market (e.g., credit, equity, fixed income) could materially impact the valuation of assets as reported within our Consolidated Financial Statements, and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. We may be required to record future impairment charges if the declines in asset values are considered other-than-temporary. If the impairment charges are significant enough, they could affect the ability of FNBPA to pay dividends to FNB (which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders), and could also negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios and result in us not being classified as “well-capitalized” for regulatory purposes.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, excessive rainfall, droughts or other adverse weather events could negatively affect the local economies in the markets of our footprint, or disrupt our operations in those markets, which could have an adverse effect on our business or results of operations.
The economy of the markets in our footprint is affected, from time to time, by adverse weather events. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, damage caused by future weather conditions will affect our operations, customers or the economies in our markets. Weather events could cause a disruption in our day-to-day business activities in branches within our markets, a decline in loan originations, destruction or decline in the value of properties securing our loans, or an increase in the risks of delinquencies, foreclosures, and loan losses. Even if a weather event does not cause any physical damage in our markets, a significant weather event could affect the market value of property within our footprint, particularly agricultural interests, which are highly sensitive to excessive rainfall or droughts.
The impacts of the pandemic on our business, financial condition and results of operations are likely to continue to change.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption in the international and U.S. economies and financial markets and had an adverse effect on our business. The spread of COVID-19 caused death, illness, quarantines, cancellation of events and travel,
32
Table of Contents
business and school shutdowns, reduction in business activity and financial transactions, supply chain interruptions and overall economic and financial market instability. Activity restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic, as well as other consequences of the pandemic, resulted in significant adverse effects for many different types of businesses, and caused significant disruption of the U.S. workforce, including labor shortages resulting from employee resignations, retirements, layoffs and furloughs, which also impacted the regions in which we operate.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have varied significantly by region, and the extent of the effects of the pandemic on the U.S. and global economies, labor markets and financial markets are likely to continue to change. Future developments will be highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the effectiveness of post-pandemic remote working arrangements, third party providers’ ability to continue to support our operations, and any further actions taken by governmental authorities and other third parties. Additionally, although there is a greater understanding of the COVID-19 virus and the US population is much more aware of behaviors to adopt to limit transmission, there remains the prospect, that new, possibly more resilient, or lethal variants, could emerge resulting in widespread lockdowns akin to those in 2020 and similar increased economic, labor, supply chain and other significant disruption which may impact our businesses. Accordingly, the pandemic and related dynamics could materially and adversely affect our business, operations, operating results, financial condition, liquidity or capital levels.
6. Legal and Compliance Risk
Fiscal challenges facing the U.S. government could negatively impact financial markets which in turn could have an adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
A U.S. government debt default, threatened debt default, or downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. by credit rating agencies, could have an adverse impact on financial markets, interest rates and economic conditions in the U.S. and worldwide.
Federal budget deficit concerns and the potential for political conflict over legislation to fund U.S. government operations and raise the U.S. government's debt limit may increase the possibility of a default by the U.S. government on its debt obligations, related credit-rating downgrades, or an economic recession in the U.S. Many of our investment securities are issued by the U.S. government and government agencies and sponsored entities. As a result of uncertain domestic political conditions, including potential future federal government shutdowns, the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its obligations for a period of time, investments in financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the federal government pose liquidity risks. In connection with prior political disputes over U.S. fiscal and budgetary issues leading to the U.S. government shutdown in 2011, S&P lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from AAA to AA+. A further downgrade, or a downgrade by other rating agencies, as well as sovereign debt issues facing the governments of other countries, could have a material adverse impact on financial markets and economic conditions in the U.S. and worldwide.
In addition to affecting the price and liquidity of U.S. government securities, a government default or threat of default could disrupt the market for or affect the pricing of repurchase agreements in U.S. government securities (Repos) a type of secured financing transaction used by many financial institutions, including FNBPA, to manage short-term funding needs, invest short-term cash balances and manage inventories of government securities. Overnight rates on Repo transactions are used by the FRB to calculate SOFR, the benchmark interest rate that is replacing LIBOR on loans and other financial contracts. A disruption in the Repo markets could affect interest rates paid on SOFR-benchmarked loans and payments on swaps and other financial contracts that use SOFR as a benchmark rate.
A debt default or further downgrades to the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness could also adversely affect the ability of the U.S. government to support the financial stability of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBs, with which FNB does business, obtains financing, engages with for sales of mortgages, and in whose securities FNB invests.
Our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by changes in federal, state or local tax rules and regulations, or interpretations.
We are subject to legislative tax rate changes that could increase our effective tax rates. Depending on enactment dates, these law changes may be retroactive to previous periods and as a result could negatively affect our current and future financial performance. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 imposed a 15% minimum tax on corporations that earn more than $1 billion per year and a non-deductible 1% excise tax on repurchases of stock by "covered corporations," such as FNB, occurring after December 31, 2022.
33
Table of Contents
Our income tax expense has differed from the tax computed at the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate due primarily to discrete items. The current Presidential Administration's approach to corporate tax rates could affect our future results of operations. Our future effective tax rates could be affected by additional changes in the federal tax rates and in tax rates in jurisdictions where our income is earned, by changes in or our interpretation of tax rules and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we do business, by unexpected negative changes in business and market conditions that could reduce certain tax benefits, or by changes in the valuation of our DTAs and DTLs. Changes in statutory tax rates or DTAs and DTLs may adversely affect our profitability and results of operations in future periods.
Our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by changes in accounting policies, standards and interpretations.
The FASB, regulatory agencies and other bodies that establish accounting standards periodically change the financial accounting and reporting standards governing the preparation of our financial statements. Additionally, those bodies that establish and interpret the accounting standards (such as the FASB, SEC and banking regulators) may change prior interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. Changes resulting from these new standards may result in materially different financial results and may require that we change how we process, analyze and report financial information and that we change financial reporting controls.
Climate change and related legislative and regulatory initiatives may result in operational changes and expenditures that could significantly impact our business.
The current and anticipated effects of climate change are creating an increasing level of concern for the state of the global environment. As a result, political and social attention to the issue of climate change has increased. In recent years, governments across the world have entered into international agreements to attempt to reduce global temperatures, in part by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress, state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies have continued to propose and advance numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change. Such initiatives have been pursued with rigor under the current Presidential Administration. The leadership of the federal banking agencies, including the FRB and the OCC, have emphasized that their supervisory charge is not to regulate climate concerns, but rather focus on climate-related risks that are faced by banking organizations of all types and sizes, specifically including physical and transition risks, and are in the process of enhancing supervisory expectations regarding banks' risk management practices. The OCC stressed in its 2022 Annual Report that climate-related financial risks pose novel challenges that national banks, together with the OCC, are expected to meet; however, the OCC acknowledged that its focus in this area has purposefully been directed at institutions with more than $100 billion in total assets as risks are more complex and material at such institutions. Relatedly, on March 30, 2022 and December 2, 2022, respectively, the FDIC and FRB issued their own proposed principles for climate risk management, which also are applicable to larger banking organizations.
In light of the foregoing, the largest banks are being encouraged by their regulators to address the climate-related risks that they face by accounting for the effects of climate change in stress testing scenarios and systematic risk assessments, revising expectations for credit portfolio concentrations based on climate-related factors, evaluating the impact of climate change on the bank's borrowers and consider possible changes to underwriting criteria to account for climate-related risks to mortgaged properties, incorporating climate-related financial risk into the bank's internal reporting, monitoring and escalation process, planning for transition risk posed by the adjustments to a low-carbon economy, and investing in climate-related initiatives and lending to communities disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. Further, the FRB is in the process of developing scenario analysis to model the possible financial risks associated with climate change. Although the stress testing and risk assessment processes should not initially apply to a banking organization of our size, as we continue to grow and expand the scope of our operations, our regulators generally will expect us to enhance our internal control programs and processes, including with respect to stress testing under a variety of adverse scenarios and related capital planning. To the extent that these initiatives lead to the promulgation of new regulations or supervisory guidance applicable to us, we would expect to experience increased compliance costs and other compliance-related risks.
The above measures may also result in the imposition of taxes and fees, the required purchase of emission credits, and the implementation of significant operational changes, each of which may require us to expend significant capital and incur compliance, operating, maintenance and remediation costs. Given the lack of empirical data on the credit and other financial risks posed by climate change, it is impossible to predict how climate change may impact our financial condition and operations; however, as a banking organization, the physical effects of climate change may present certain unique risks to us.
34
Table of Contents
We could be adversely affected by changes in the law, especially changes in the regulation of the banking industry.
We operate in a highly regulated environment and our businesses are subject to supervision, regulation, enforcement and prosecution by several governmental agencies, including the SEC, FRB, OCC, CFPB, FDIC, FSOC, DOJ, UST, FINRA, HUD and state attorneys general and banking, financial services, and securities regulators. Regulations are generally intended to provide protection for depositors, borrowers and other customers, as well as the stability of the financial services industry, rather than for investors in our securities. We are subject to changes in federal and state law, regulations, governmental policies, agency supervisory and enforcement policies and priorities, and tax laws and accounting principles. Changes in regulations or the regulatory environment could adversely affect the banking and financial services industry as a whole and could limit our growth and the return to investors by restricting such activities as, for example:
• the payment of dividends and stock repurchases;
• balance sheet growth;
• investments;
• loans and interest rates;
• assessments of fees, such as overdraft and electronic transfer interchange fees;
• the provision of securities, insurance, brokerage or trust services;
• mergers with or acquisitions of other institutions or branches;
• the types of deposit and non-deposit activities in which our subsidiaries may engage; and
• offering of new products and services.
Under regulatory capital adequacy guidelines and other regulatory requirements, FNB and FNBPA must meet guidelines subject to qualitative judgments by regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. From time to time, the regulators implement changes to those regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. Changes to present capital and liquidity requirements could restrict our activities and require us to maintain additional capital. Compliance with heightened capital standards may reduce our ability to generate or originate revenue-producing assets and thereby restrict revenue generation from banking and non-banking operations. If we fail to meet these minimum capital guidelines and other regulatory requirements, our financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.
Our overdraft protection programs and corresponding revenue may be impacted by possible new federal regulatory requirements or scrutiny or industry trends regarding such practices.
Members of Congress and the leadership of the OCC, FDIC and CFPB have expressed a heightened interest in bank overdraft protection programs. The CFPB has used its supervision process to obtain additional information about financial institutions' overdraft practices and has indicated that it intends to pursue enforcement actions against financial institutions, and their executives, that oversee overdraft practices that are deemed to be unlawful. The CFPB also has published guidance containing instructions for financial institutions to avoid the imposition of unlawful overdraft fees. These actions are a component of the CFPB’s broader supervision and enforcement initiative targeting so-called consumer “junk fees.” In addition, the OCC has identified potential options for reform of national bank overdraft protection practices, including providing a grace period before the imposition of a fee, refraining from charging multiple fees in a single day and eliminating fees altogether.
In response to this increased congressional and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry, and in anticipation of possible enhanced supervision and enforcement of overdraft protection practices in the future, certain banking organizations have modified their overdraft protection programs, including by discontinuing the imposition of overdraft transaction fees. These competitive pressures from our peers, as well as any adoption by our regulators of new rules or supervisory guidance or more aggressive examination and enforcement policies in respect of banks’ overdraft protection practices, could cause us to modify our program and practices in ways that may have a negative impact on our revenue and earnings. In addition, as supervisory expectations and industry practices regarding overdraft protection programs change, our continued offering of overdraft protection may result in negative public opinion and increased reputation risk. Despite our effort to modify our overdraft practices to conform to recent regulatory guidance and expectations, we may remain subject to regulatory criticism and negative public reaction through our continued offering of these products and services.
35
Table of Contents
Certain provisions of our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws and Pennsylvania law may discourage takeovers.
Our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws contain certain anti-takeover provisions that may discourage or may make more difficult or expensive a tender offer, change in control or takeover attempt that is opposed by our Board of Directors. In particular, our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws:
• require shareholders to give us advance notice to nominate candidates for election to our Board of Directors or to solicit proxies in support of such candidates, or to make shareholder proposals at a shareholders’ meeting;
• permit our Board of Directors to issue, without approval of our common shareholders unless otherwise required by law, preferred stock with such terms as our Board of Directors may determine;
• require the vote of the holders of at least 75% of our voting shares for shareholder amendments to our By-laws;
• in the case of a proposed business combination with a shareholder owning 10% or more of the voting shares of FNB, the vote of the holders of at least two-thirds of the voting shares not owned by such shareholder is required to approve the business combination, unless it is approved by a majority of FNB’s disinterested directors.
Under Pennsylvania law, only shareholders holding at least 25% of a corporation’s outstanding stock may call a special meeting for any purpose. In addition, Pennsylvania law provides that in discharging their duties, including in the context of a takeover attempt, the board of directors, committees of the board and individual directors may consider a broad range of factors as they deem pertinent, which may include but is not limited to shareholders’ interests, in considering the best interests of the corporation.
These provisions of our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws and of Pennsylvania law could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change in control, even though the holders of a majority of our stock may consider such proposals desirable. Such provisions could also make it more difficult for third parties to remove and replace members of our Board of Directors. Moreover, these provisions could diminish the opportunities for shareholders to participate in certain tender offers, including tender offers at prices above the then-current market price of our common stock, and may also inhibit increases in the trading price of our common stock that could result from takeover attempts.
7. Strategic Risk
If we are not able to continue our historical levels of growth, we may not be able to maintain our historical revenue trends.
To achieve our past levels of growth, we have focused on both organic growth and acquisitions. We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth or may not be able to grow at all. More specifically, we may not be able to obtain the financing necessary to fund additional growth. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and other governmental concerns, and competition, may impede or prohibit the opening of new retail branches or optimizing our existing branch network. Further, we may be unable to attract and retain experienced bankers, which could adversely affect our organic growth. If we are not able to continue our historical levels of growth, we may not be able to maintain our historical revenue trends.
In July 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy which encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the BHC Act and Bank Merger Act and adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices. In response, on March 25, 2022, the FDIC issued a request for information on the effectiveness of the existing framework for evaluating bank mergers and acquisitions under the FDI Act with particular focus on the increase in asset concentration among banking organizations with more than $100 billion in total assets. The OCC is considering conditioning the agency’s approvals of mergers and acquisitions involving larger regional banking organizations (i.e., those with $500 billion or more in total assets) on “actions and credible commitments”—which would result in such mergers being subject to regulatory requirements similar to those which apply to mergers involving Global Systemically Important Banks (or G-SIBs). Further, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and DOJ announced in January 2022 a joint public inquiry aimed at strengthening the agencies’ enforcement against mergers that would violate the federal antitrust laws. As a result, the FTC and DOJ are believed to be more closely evaluating proposed mergers and acquisitions, including within the financial services sector, that have the potential to limit competition. The timing and prospects for the formal adoption by the federal banking agencies of modified regulatory standards for the evaluation of bank mergers and acquisitions is uncertain at this time. Any enhanced regulatory scrutiny of bank mergers and acquisitions and revision of the framework for merger application review may adversely affect the marketplace for such transactions, could result in future applications being delayed, impeded or restricted in certain respects and could result in new rules that possibly limit the size of financial institutions we may be able to acquire in the future or alter the terms for such transactions. In addition, recessionary concerns, lower stock
36
Table of Contents
valuations, and concerns about a highly politicized regulatory and governmental enforcement environment could limit bank merger activity.
8. Merger-Related Risk
Integrating our business with that of Howard and Union may fail to realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the merger, which may adversely affect our business results and negatively affect the value of our common stock following the merger.
The success of the mergers, including anticipated benefits and cost savings, will depend, in part, on our ability to successfully combine and integrate the businesses within our projected timeframe in a manner that permits growth opportunities and does not materially disrupt existing customer relationships, impair our reputation or brand, or result in decreased revenues due to loss of customers. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger in the timeframes projected could result in significantly increased costs and decreased revenues.
The merger may not be accretive, and may be dilutive, to our earnings per share, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.
We currently expect the mergers to be accretive to earnings per share in the first full calendar year after closing (excluding one-time charges). This expectation, however, is based on preliminary estimates which may materially change. We may encounter additional transaction- and integration-related costs or other factors such as failing to realize all of the benefits anticipated in the merger or we may be subject to other factors that affect preliminary estimates or our ability to realize operational efficiencies. Any of these factors could cause a decrease in our earnings per share or decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the merger and contribute to a decrease in the price of our common stock.
Our decisions regarding the valuation associated with Howard Bank and Union Banks' loan portfolios could be incorrect and our credit mark may be inadequate, which may adversely affect the financial condition and results of operations of the combined company after the closing of the merger.
Before signing the merger agreement, we conducted extensive due diligence on a significant portion of the Howard and Union Banks' loan portfolios. However, our review did not encompass each and every loan in the Howard and Union Banks' loan portfolios. In accordance with customary industry practices, we evaluated the Howard and Union Banks' loan portfolios based on various factors including, among other things, historical loss experience, economic risks associated with each loan category, volume and types of loans, trends in classification, volume and trends in delinquencies and non-accruals, and general economic conditions, both local and national. During this process and based on our credit underwriting experience, our management made various subjective assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness and financial condition of the borrowers, the value of the real estate, which is obtained from independent appraisers, other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of the loans, the existence of any guarantees and indemnifications and the economic environment in which the borrowers operate. In addition, the effects of probable decreases in expected principal cash flows on the Howard and Union Banks' loans were considered as part of our evaluation. If these assumptions and judgments turn out to be incorrect, including as a result of the fact that our due diligence review did not cover each individual loan, our estimated credit mark against the Howard and Union Banks' loan portfolios in total may be insufficient to cover actual loan losses after the merger is completed, and adjustments may be necessary to allow for different economic conditions or adverse developments in the Howard and Union Banks' loan portfolios.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
NONE.